User talk:Slakr/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Sinebot works too hard

Why does Sinebot keep sending me messages when I have just signed my comments? I always signed with “--~~~~” on its own line. I tried “ --~~~~” on the last line of the comment. No joy, Sinebot still thinks I did wrong. But my signature is there for all to see! (I don't really want to turn Sinebot off, for the 1 or 2 times a year I might forget to sign.)

Also, why does Sinebot welcome me as a new user? I have been on Wikipedia since 2002.

-- Solo Owl 15:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You're signature doesn't link to your userspace. That's why.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

sinebot

that thing is so annoying its mother is a dell desktop stupid non human computer sinebot is delete it NOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I once asked it to open the pod bay doors, and it was all like "I'm afraid I can't do that: you didn't sign your request. HAHAHAHA!" It then proceeded to blast a death-metal cover of "Daisy" through the mic. 6 years old. I think it's hitting bot-puberty or something. --slakr^\ talk / 11:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

3rr.php script not working because your Toolserver account is expired

http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php. How can this expire so fast? You fixed it in June already, per a thread above. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Argh. *throws hands up in the air.* I have no idea—especially with someone like me, who has a track record of life tugging on me constantly. I'll mail them presently *sigh*. --slakr^\ talk / 11:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot: bug?

Hello! Could you explain what happened here? I restored someone else's signed comment (which another user had deleted for - I thought - no good reason), and your bot then proceeded to mark it as having been added by myself. Its edit summary implied that it thought that it was signing a comment which in fact had been my edit summary. Is this supposed to happen, or is it a bug in the bot code? W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello wpUzer, I'm also waiting for a reply to my comment, so I don't have inside info for you. I'm not sure whether sineBot is able to figure out when you are merely restoring somebody else's comments, without yourself making any additions, as opposed to quoting somebody else for context (and then adding some commentary of your own). Slakr can prolly tell us that answer -- it may depend on how you perform the restore, such as clicking undo/revert instead of using copy-n-paste, for instance.

   That said, in cases where you know in advance you do not want sineBot to add your name&date, there is a manual workaround: put the magic word !nosign! at the end of your edit-summary. The trick does not work if you put !nosign! into the body of the edit, you have to put it into the edit-summary one-liner. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

74.*'s on the right track. The bot would normally ignore it if you had used the "undo" feature and appended to the auto-generated edit summary or said one of several magic words (e.g., "revert," "undo," etc...) that most people tend to say when doing stuff like that. You're also on the verge of the 800-edit limit (after which it'd start ignoring you anyway, assuming, rightfully so, that you're becoming an advanced user). :D --slakr^\ talk / 10:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I see, thanks. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

New REFBot

There is a proposal on Wikipedia:Bot requests#New REFBot for a new REFBot working as DPL bot and BracketBot do. I beg politely for consideration. Please leave a comment if you wish. Maybe you could work on it like you did it with other projects? That would be fine. Thanks a lot in anticipation. -- Frze (talk · contribs) 10:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping both myself, and wikipedia herself, alive to enjoy yet another daybreak

Dear $DEV(arg=slakr), Welcome To Wikipedia! Having carefully perused your well-thought out documentation, I am here to humbly point to a design decision. I am a class-fourteen anon with 407 hitpoints, working my way up the ladder of relevance, may Chuck Norris live ten thousand years. I appeal to your class-six hacker-nature for assistance with a certain class-15 entity. Perhaps it is not worth mentioning, but I am not here for myself... someone else convinced me this issue should be brought to $DEV attention, and said to specifically mention that I have applied for citizenship on Vulcan, so as not to offend your status as a class-six Earthling Of The Terran Federation, virtually a sidekick of Chuck Norris himself, may he live ten thousand years. The case I present to you on behalf of my friend, who strangely claimed they were too busy to speak with you themselves, and also that I should not bother your ears by transmitting their identity, oddly enough, nevertheless I present to you in calm quiet words as follows:

1. SineBot is a useful thing -- thanks
2. SineBot adds reminders to talkpages when users -- especially new inexperienced users -- forget to manually type the four tildes (or just do not know to do so)
3. As various messages above testify, this talkpage-template is perceived as helpful by at least two class-thirteens, but perceived as not-so-helpful by at least four
4. SineBot only applies to users with 800 edits or less... which is to say, specifically to newbies
5. SineBot has always been careful not to impersonate anybody, with the phrase "preceding unsigned comment" typifying the way it works
6. SineBot has a documented design-decision: "...the bot should not be used as an alternative to properly signing posts yourself"

Uhh... perhaps this is intuitively obvious... but why *not* use a bot, to automate this manual step? What does it mean to say automating such manual steps would not be 'proper'?

My humble question is about whether SineBot, designed to train newbies, ought to templatize their talkpages, and n00b-mark their work as "preceding unsigned comment" within 60 seconds of their goof. WP:BITE does not outrank WP:BITED, of course... but it seems like SineBot is doing extra work now, when it could just as easily alter that design decision, and do less work. In particular, instead of this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.8.8.8 (talk) 01:23, 01 February 2003 (UTC)

Why not simply this, with no talkpage wrist-slap:

—8.8.8.8 (talk) 01:23, 01 February 2003 (UTC) <magic />

People that don't want the 'magic' dust on the end will click the link, and learn what to do. Plus, plenty of human editors are already quick to remind newbies 'remember to sign your posts' if they forget. SineBot need not double-remind them when it auto-signs, and then triple-remind them with a talkpage-template. A magic helper-bot, rather than a wrist-slap bot, might just improve WP:RETENTION. Anyhoo, since my suggestion involves removing features (no more talkpage reminders and no more tilde-output-transformation but rather simply a tilde-output-append), I do not believe it will generate much additional $DEV work, may they live ten thousand years. Less complexity means less testing, so maybe it will even reduce $DEV work, and should also help encourage rather than discourage newbies, some of whom may eventually rise to the exalted status of class-six, thereby reducing $DEV work even further, in the long run.

I'd be happy to perform the necessary effort myself, but as yet am still a class-fourteen entity. But humble $DEV slakr! Please behold! SineBot is class-fifteen in the cabal's caste system!  :-) The abuse of this bot's power to automagically sign without biting is my plea! Should this design decision be changed I will gratefully !vote support in all future class-eleven bot upgrades![1] May I be permitted to live again tomorrow! Banzai wikipedia! Banzai Chuck Norris!

p.s. I cannot believe the cabal would put a picture of Ballmer on that page, instead of this.[2]

p.p.s. Surprisingly, there actually is somebody editing from google's DNS server, or maybe just spoofing their IP, to comment on the VisualEditor to a $DEV, without fear... foolish of them... so my example above actually ended up with blue-links, unexpectedly. Thanks for your time. Let me know if there's something I missed. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose this could be a FAQ entry, but basically the bot ignores WP:DTTR (and, depending on how sensitive you are, WP:BITE) for roughly two reasons: avoiding talk page chaos and avoiding reliance on the bot. The former's a no-brainer, and the latter might not be obvious unless you're the person running the bot, you're taking database dumps, you're someone doing anti-vandalism work, you're looking through talk page archives, or you're adhering to the categorical imperative. In those situations, letting people rely on the the bot to sign every talk page comment becomes a much more obviously problematic situation, not to mention during times when the bot might be down. That said, the great thing about a bot dropping a {{tilde}} on someone's talk page is that it's, well, not a human, so if someone has the type of personality that's not as conducive to constructive criticism, they can rage on the bot and/or my talk page (e.g., "zOMG YR BOT SUCKS!!!!!!11!!") instead of someone else. Neither of our feelings will be hurt. ;)

Incidentally, we tend to hide the proverbial Laws of the Land to avoid making people think they need to read or necessarily abide by them in order to edit, all in an attempt to encourage WP:BOLD-ness. The bot provides one of the first sanity checks to that and can frequently be one of the first introductions to just what a guideline is, how it might differ from a policy, and why guidelines should still be followed most of the time. Incidentally, that's also why the userboxes on its user page include a balance of several key policies, model behaviors, and silliness/humor—all things that, if they were unaware of at first but then mimicked faithfully, would make it difficult for a user to go wrong.

That's just a spillover benefit. At the core of the issue, people just need to be trained to sign their posts, because, well, that's how we do things. I also didn't make the bot for the posters of comments; rather, I made it for the readers of comments. The ratio of posters vs. readers is high (i.e., more people post than read everything that's been posted), while the ratio of time it takes for 1 poster to click the sig button or type out "--~~~~" (1-3 secs) vs. the time it takes for each reader to dive through page history to find the poster (30-300+ seconds * number of readers per unsigned post) is disproportionately high.

We get potty trained when we're life-noobs for the same reason: taking a restroom break uses a lot less time than waiting around for some kind soul to clean up our messes after-the-fact (or worse: assuming someone or something always will).

Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 08:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

... and if you want to "improve WP:RETENTION," I don't think the problem is as much with the site or its workings as it is with the society in which the site exists. I speak from experience: I'm woefully inactive on here nowadays, but it's definitely not because I've said "zOMG ENOUGH!" or because the learning curve was ever too high (obviously). Rather, it's because my country and most of its corporate culture seems to expect too much from its skilled-labor workforce (and increasingly students) without giving much back (time, money, etc...), leaving them with much less time or safety to do volunteer work or make things better for everyone else in their society. People also have less time to learn new things, less time to be patient with others, less time to explain things, and less time to spend fostering relationships with people from different walks of life to form a cohesive community. Wikipedia's learning curve not only demands all of those things from its editors, it can't function without them.

If you're looking for ways to increase retention, the canary in the coal mine isn't as much of the problem as is the coal mine that suffocates it. When we get wind of Wikipedians committing suicide, for example, it's certainly not because a bot posted a message on their talk page or because their article got deleted (lol... "My article on a minor character in an obscure TV series is at AfD and everyone's voting delete... /wrists"). Rather, it's because something horrible happened to them in real life and they're otherwise made to feel cornered and worthless despite their obvious intelligence, worth, and rarity—we should know, too, because we tend to keep an accurate record of their intelligence, worth, and rarity. Death's an extreme example, but I use it here to emphasize the importance of Real Life in an environment where it's easy to forget it exists and that it can (and does) factor in significantly as a confounding variable.

Obviously, I've gotten a bit heavy, long-winded, and rambly on this, in part because I have personal feelings about this, too. The TLDR point is that it's been over a decade since things really took off, and not much has really changed on here (other than volume and ability to cope with it)—at least when you look at the big picture. People have come and gone: some have probably gotten tired of one hobby and moved on to another; some have stormed off...but I'm confident that there are plenty of us out there that, if life weren't already beating us to a pulp, would be sitting on here all day, happily helping to fix things. It's human nature.

--slakr^\ talk / 10:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello slakr, thanks for your response. I did not find it rambling, it was just what I was hoping for, and trying to do: start a discussion about the rationale behind sinebot design-decisions. Your first sentence is wrong, though. (Hah! I take my life into my hands and trout the dev! Look at me ma! Top of the worLDDDDDdd....++__-88!!!$^^NOCARRIER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(air shimmers) ( flash of light) Wha... ummmm, eh? Where am I? That was strange. What's this about bots... hmmm... ah, I see where we are. Although you claim that SineBot ignores WP:TEMPLAR, in fact anybody with over 800 editors is not subject to SineBot template-spam, or SineBot "preceding unsigned message" sig-spam. So let us divide wikipedia into her unwritten but *very* apparent caste system. Single-digit edit-count: the n00b caste, universally shunned, the untouchables. Double-digit edit-count: the beginner caste, also universally shunned, but sometimes allowed on talkpages, if not in mainspace. Triple-digit edit-count: the brahmin caste, the social priesthood of wikipedia, respected by sinebot, given the time of day by deities. Quadruple-digit edit-count: the warrior caste, spending many hours fighting vandals, reverting spammers, and from time to time accidentally injuring a brahmin, which is rare and usually non-permanent. (They often slay untouchables, who never return to wikipedia -- good riddance, right?) Quintuple-digit edit-count: deity-caste, WP:WikiGiant and dark WP:WikiKnights, crushing anyone in their way, sending forth their bot armies to do their bidding, glorified by all lesser castes. Now, you might say this is harsh... but who brought up Special:Contributions as a direct metric for measuring worth? Burn! Look ma.... Whoa. Never mind. No more lightning bolts needed. These are not the n00bs you're looking for. Whew.

"I also didn't make the bot for the posters of comments; rather, I made it for the readers of comments."

   Basically, your argument is that SineBot is a training-by-shaming tool, and the beginners and the n00bs have to be shamed-n-trained, because "that is how we do things". Meaning, of course, 'we' the wiki-brahmins, wiki-warriors, and wiki-deities... the readers of comments, for the most part... as specifically distinct from 'them' the soiled-diaper too-stupid-to-clean-up-after-themselves beginners and n00bs. Hmmmmmmmm. Let's use a table.

caste	sole measure of worth	sinebot now by slakr	sinebot by 74-whatever
n00b	8	sigSpam + templateSpam	magic (see above for description)
beginner	80	sigSpam + templateSpam	magic (see above for description)
brahmin	800	8/9ths sigSpam + templateSpam, 1/9th respect	8/9ths sigSpam + templateSpam, 1/9th respect
warrior	8000	respect aka WP:TEMPLAR	respect aka WP:TEMPLAR
deity	80000	respect aka WP:TEMPLAR	respect aka WP:TEMPLAR

So what changes? Well, all the people with 99 edits or less depend on SineBot. But how is that 'change' from the current situation? SineBot has millions of edits... those aren't because folks with 8000 edits are forgetful, it's because n00bs simply don't *know* better, shame on baby, potty on the floor, nasty, nasty, momma has to clean it up. Hint: babies under one year old are not potty-trained. Nobody expects them to walk to the bathroom, climb up on the toilet, use it without making a mess, wipe themselves, flush, and wash their hands. Especially when they have not even learned to crawl yet, let alone walk.

   But that's bad for slakr, right? Because if people depend on SineBot for their first 100 edits, then they'll expect sinebot to keep working! Yes they will. Which means, when you start giving them template spam, during their brahmin-phase of growth, it needs to clearly state the reason *why* they are now getting spam: which is quite simply, because they have made 100 edits, and are therefore likely to make 100s or 1000s or tens of thousands of additional edits, and for server-load reasons, plus traditional creaky legacy software that does not automagically add four tildes at the bottom of talkpage posts by default, we'd like them to start manually adding those four tildes, rather than depending on SineBot. Which means the potty-training, as you so bluntly put it, will still happen. But only once we're sure the editor needs to be potty-trained. And only once they can actually walk, and actually know what a tilde is, and so on. Socially speaking, I'm quite sure this will drastically reduce the number of zOMG messages on your talkpage, because sinebot will no longer be spamming the beginners with officious templates. More importantly, statistically speaking, I doubt we'll lose *any* editors, if sinebot stays out of their way and tries to be helpful for their first through 99th edits, and then starts WP:MINNOW annoying them on their 100th through 799th edits... because by the time somebody has made 100 edits, they are addicted.  :-)

in which I sneakily conceal the remainder of my WP:WALLOFTEXT with a small trigger-button that unwary readers will be tempted to click.......

As for sinebot only being WP:BITE for beginners that are especially sensitive, I tend to agree... but the percentage of easily-miffed people is non-zero, as sinebot's talkpage attests. Why drive away even the easily-miffed overly-sensitive types, if we don't have to? That's just WP:BITE for the sake of being bitey. For the rest of your points, I'll try and quickly touch them, since I've already gone on for some time now... yes sinebot is a necessity for avoiding talkpage chaos, yes our key point of disagreement is on whether or not *everybody* should be forced to manually type tilde tilde tilde tilde rather than depending on sinebot, and in particular there is a category of folks who *already* implicitly rely on sinebot because they don't know what they're doing. If you want the bot not to go down, then we should solve that by making it auto-restarting, and sharing the admin-duties, and sharing the bugfixing-duties, and so on... not by biting n00bs. Your comment about the the template-spam being *better* because it is from a bot, I've addressed elsewhere in a somewhat-related conversation about abusefilter-antivandalism-bot.[3] (Feel free to comment over there, btw, if you care about abusefilter stuff.) I agree that shrouding WP:PG behind a beginner-friendly set of tools is important... but we don't hide the WP:Five_pillars, right? And bots should obey pillar four as strictly as possible, and never resort to pillar five. Bots are *incapable* of obeying pillar one and pillar two, lacking Strong AI. (Bots are an example-instantiation of pillar three: anyone can edit wikipedia, human or not... on the internet nobody knows you are a dog.)    You and I both see sinebot as a sanity-check, and a training-tool, and most importantly of all as a computerized way to help beginners so that they can avoid reading five bazillion pages of bureaucratic legalese before they make their first edit. SineBot is great at most of that. But the sig-spam has always annoyed me, as conducive to the formation of a caste system, and the recent 'upgrade' to provide automated template-spam on talkpages is what brought me here. I suggest that some slight changes, to make sinebot auto-helpful for users with less than N edits, and a training-tool for users with more than N but fewer than M edits, and then an optional accessory for users with greater than M edits, will dramatically improve things. Right now, sinebot has N=0 and M=800. I suggest N=99 and (to retain backwards compatibility and avoid any helpdoc changes) leaving M=800. I am fully confident in stating that all newborns, once they have been cleaned up a few times, *expect* that cleanup will continue. That is only natural. I also note that 99.9999% of adults overcame their shock and alarm and utter surprise at being expected to clean up after themselves, back when they were still little (but big enough to walk), and are currently reasonably well trained in such behavioral areas. Sorry about my potty mouth, apologies for my WP:WALLOFTEXT, all hail Chuck Norris, may he live ten thousand years. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)    p.s. As for improving society, I agree that is a big problem. And I try to do my part there, as well. But wikipedia has an advantage over society: if somebody is rude on wikipedia, they can be banned. If somebody makes a mistake on wikipedia, anybody can fix it, most of the time. If somebody dumps spam in my physical mailbox, I have to manually hunt through it, and personally throw it away, and pay for the trash-pickup, not to mention the postal-system subsidies and tax-loopholes that were used to generate that physical spam in the first place! Wikipedia is a reflection of the real world, in some ways, but we have more capability to mold wikipedia to suite our desires than we do to topple The Man in the real world. Furthermore... if wikipedia shows it can be done, maybe the real world will follow. I consider wikipedia a test-case, for how corporations, and governments, ought to be run. Right now it is not perfect, but improving it does seem worthwhile to me... and if we can foster a cohesive community, where people are patient, willing to explain, try to foster relationships, and enjoy learning new things... the techniques can be exported. But I strongly disagree that purposely making it hard to become a wikipedian by throwing up roadblocks to success, BUILT TO DETER folks from becoming editors, is helpful. Quite the opposite. Wikipedia's tools and infrastructure should never put up roadblocks to patience, roadblocks to explanations, roadblocks to fostering relationships, or roadblocks to the enjoyment of learning, and especially not roadblocks to the enjoyment of making. But we do. Brahmins, warriors, deities, they all rush-rush-rush around, putting out fires, biting the newbies, poisoning the RfA process, holding grudges... not enough time, got to block the IP range of this entire school system indefinitely, got to smack down this n00b with template-spam and then revert-or-ignore their comment should they dare complain... not enough admins to keep wikipedia alive, not enough devs, not enough wikicops, not enough good editors. We are shooting ourselves in the groin here. We need to retain as many good people as we can. Not just the masochists that forced their way over the obstacle course. Becoming a wikipedian should be a process of growth, where you learn to be patient, to explain, to foster relationships... and to help others in the lower castes learn the same things. Tools can help. But wikiCulture is my real target, long-term. HTH 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)    p.p.s. "Not much has really changed [since 2003]." In a way -- not really a good way -- that is true. Active editors is stuck at 30k,[4] with 10% to 40% of those folks being admins-or-pseudo-admins (quad-digit edit-counts / huggle / stiki / npp / similar). RfA has stopped dead, just in the last three years or so, not even counting losses (or 'semi-retirement' like your real-world situation has currently forced you into). I see WP:RETENTION as a plausible silver bullet; if we can retain a tenth of a percent of the hundreds of millions of uniques wikipedia gets every month as active editors, we'll have somewhere around fivefold as many active editors, and our many problems will seem *much* more tractable. Surely less than 99.9% of wikipedia readers are Bad People, right? WP:AGF All we have to do, is make our tools attract the Good Eggs. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

p.p.p.s. Kant is, by the way, a very bad man. He thinks it is not merely pragmatic but mandatory to inform the local nazis where Anne Frank is hiding, and furthermore, that for someone in Auschwitz to commit suicide rather than endure is not merely a poor overall outcome but flatly immoral and wrong of them. How dare those prisoners commit suicide? How dare those citizens lie to the authorities? Yikes. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

ProcseeBot stopped?

Hi, I've been "mirroring" ProcseeBot's blocks in fi-wiki and I've noticed there are no new blocks since end of August. Is the bot shutdown or will it continue sometimes? --Harriv (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like someone changed the API for grabbing the block token (again). The bot's been trying, but it basically just failed to make the block. I've fixed the issue now, but it'll take some time to catch up. --slakr^\ talk / 14:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.146.129.241

Hi, can you please block Special:Contributions/75.146.129.241 indefinitely, because it seems a permanently user is currently vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.244 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello slakr, I made a cursory backtrack on this alleged vandalism, and found it unlikely to hold truthiness... instead there was a maze of twisty passages, all alike, over in the pop-music-articles.

1. 75 has quite a lot of messages on their talkpage, mostly from changing Van Morrison, and similar 'touchy' musical subjects, almost entirely template-spam. User_talk:75.146.129.241
2. The problem here seems to be that 75 simply does not understand how talkpages work, at all.[5]
3. But 75 does edit in good faith. Maybe they never read talkpages, because they only receive template-spam there? Or just don't know how stuff works. Or don't care (this last would not be good).
4. Some good work by 75.[6]
5. Some more good work by 75.[7]
6. Some more good work by 75.[8]
7. Here is 75 doing a bunch of work, constructive albeit unsourced.[9]
8. Here is a slightly-different 183_IP, deleting all that work as "useless".[10]
9. Unclear whether the two 183's are the same.[11]
10. Some more good work by 75.[12]
11. This work by 75 was reverted, for no reason I could see, and with no talkpage contact by the deletionist.[13]
12. Adding a genre to B.B.King -- which although unsourced by 75, is in fact correct, see below.[14]
13. The article on the Memphis Blues genre which 75 added to the B.B.King article.[15]
14. Here is something 75 did in good faith which *was* pretty clearly incorrect; adding capitalization, but whacking two links.[16]
15. This is a long-running edit-war that 75 has been involved in, over whether Van Morrison is a soul-singer.[17]

If you *do* decide to block 75, please use it only as a way to get their attention diverted onto a talkpage for once -- so somebody can explain to them why they keep getting templated -- they obviously know how to edit *article* pages so they ought to have the mental capacity to grok talkpages ... but for some reason have never managed to actually edit any talkpages.

On the other hand, my advice about 183 is less kind... someone with a nearby IP seems to be deleting useful information from wikipedia, that 75 was editing constructively (or at least... editing in good faith if failing to seek consensus on talkpages plus cite sources). That may or may not be the 183 that came here to plead for Permanent Ban Hammer favors, although probably some admin-tools could find that answer out. What is clear is that the 183 on this talkpage, regardless of whether they are the same at the other 183, is falsely accusing 75 of vandalism, which is Bad News regardless of the motivation behind the false accusation. Now, from the grammar in the message by the 183 on this talkpage, and from the grammar of the other 183, maybe English is not the native language, so it makes sense to try and explain the policies about WP:NPA and about using talkpages for resolving disputes interpersonally, rather than begging admins to smite your content-dispute-opponent, or whatever turns out to be going on between these two. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Conyers Baronets

Could you please check all of the referencing formats for the "Conyers Baronets" page and also the referenceing formatting for the "5th Earl of Orkney" page.

THanks so much Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.10.139 (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

attributed some views roughly in your direction

Hi slakr, I'm having a discussion with somebody about whether insisting that new editors must all learn wikitext, as a means of proving their WP:COMPETENCE and demonstrating WP:CLUE, is a good or bad thing. Since it was along the same sort of lines as our discussion about using the wiki-toolset to train beginning editors to Do The Right Thing with respect to signing their posts, I mentioned your name, and vaguely waved in your direction when referencing some specific views, which I'm not sure are the same as those you actually hold. Feel free to correct any misrepresentation. Thanks, see you around. p.s. The stuff about the baronets was added without a subsection, so I made one for it... not sure it was meant for your talkpage, or for somebody else with a similar username. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Very impressive use of a bot to help protect wikipedia from vandals. Thanks for your efforts on this!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Using a bot to stop the proxies. Only ONE block of the last 50 was NOT performed by ProcseeBot! 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 09:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please help me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tnoova

I own the photo. Its mine!

I am releasing it.

It can not be disputed.

Please help

(Tnoova (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Please help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Harris_Ph.D.,_Academic.jpg

Please help.

This photo is mine!

I own it.

It is held up by a Wikipedia person for NO reason. I own the picture.

Thank you!

(Tnoova (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

E-mail

I've sent you one. John Reaves 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your toolserver tools

Hello. Could you please move them to labs or publish the source (especially [18] which is needed by a bot on Commons). I also filed a bug: bugzilla:58887. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Whats the point of this bot

Procseebot seems to be blocking thousands of ip's that have never edited as proxies. What is the point of that? All this is doing is filling up the block logs with useless blocks and causing potentially useful edits to go undone because they can't even edit. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Procseebot seems to be blocking thousands of ip's that have never edited as proxies. This is true; it goes back to why it was made in the first place: the pitfall of a large block log is basically outweighed by the prevention of the extremely-difficult-to-revert chaos caused by hundreds of proxies being used by one person to vandalize hundreds of articles in the course of a few minutes, combined with the advantage of easily unblocking verified-as-now-closed proxies by any available admin. The bot does publish a DNSBL (which would reduce the block log issue), but it's not used because of the latter ease-of-unblocking and the common unblocking channels already in place. This contrasts sharply with the DNSBL approach, which would have been extremely vague, relatively silent, and would have required a lot of additional plumbing to replicate the ease-of-unblocking and glass-house transparency already afforded by the block log. Long story short, it was/is the best of all worlds (given available resources), and while it does have the tiny chance of ensnaring a legit editor in the 2-month overlap of a DHCP reassignment on an initial block, it's extremely rare (for various reasons) and is easily rectifiable under the current system. It's not perfect, but it helps act as a refrigerator to keep the proverbial Ninth Circle of Hell frozen with the least possibility of accidentally freezing poet/writer passersby, and has a big, friendly "thaw" button for them just in case. --slakr^\ talk / 17:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I report users for misbehaviour on Wikipedia?

Hi I'm new here, a conversation between two users has basically turned into fisticuffs. I told the two to calm down and have a break, they went on being aggressive and one of them is outright denouncing and threatening the other.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Check out the dispute resolution process. If someone is making threats, you might also consider a post to the administrator's noticeboard. --slakr^\ talk / 20:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sinebot question

More of suggestion I suppose. Why not have the bot simply add a regular signature without the — Preceding unsigned comment added by ... portion? I feel this would be slightly less disruptive as it takes up less space on the page. -- John Reaves 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It simply uses {{unsigned}} et al templates, so what you see at those is what you get. --slakr^\ talk / 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Slakr. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just saying that I am happy to have you unblock if you think that's best, off to bed now. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Deeeleeete Award

Thanks! Kind of funny... shortly after your message, somebody thought I should be deleted. [19] [20] Can the Cyberban be reprogrammed to provide defense? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

User:SineBot mistake?

Hi there. I'm guessing SineBot shouldn't be signing stuff here? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a talk page, but ftfy --slakr^\ talk / 04:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for recovering last version of deleted page

Hi Slakr, I was disappointed at your deletion of the wiki page of the [Society for Intercultural Dialogue]. The organisation is fighting an important battle to protect the heritage of the ancient city of Varanasi in India and would like to bring together voices to advocate the cause and would like to share resources that others can avail of for similar initiatives in their towns/cities. Is there any way to revise the page and propose it again? And is it possible for me to recover the last version of the page since I edited it and did not save those edits elsewhere? I would really appreciate if you could give your advise on how to improve the page and on how to recover the last version of the page on wiki. Please help!! thanksVrindadar (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

hello

Could you explain why you've deleted this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleischmann-Pons_experiment

I'm basically arguing that consensus doesn't overrule the edit guidelines. I'm asking for the specific guideline that allows for the suppress of articles by consensus. I dont believe such a thing exists. I dont need any consensus before I create an article, it doesn't work like that. We have policies, Wikipedia:I_don't_like_it isn't one of them.

• Wikipedia:Splitting: "The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article, are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed."
• Wikipedia:SIZERULE#Splitting_an_article: "Very large articles _should_ be split into logically separate articles."
• Wikipedia:SIZERULE#Size_guideline: "100+ kB Almost certainly should be divided"

• Previously Steve Baker suggested to split the article purely on the basis of it's size:[21]

• Before that a split was suggested because "Cold fusion" is not synonymous with "the Pons-Fleischmann experiment".[22]

I add to this that the percentage of Pons and Fleischmann coverage in the cold fusion article is too large. Per:

• Wikipedia:Summary_style#Avoiding_unnecessary_splits "Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts."

Add to this that most of the sources are to old to apply to anything other than P&F. Refutations published in 1990 do not refute publications from 2014. Updating sources is a nice idea but a ton of work, it is much more sensible to have an article scope that fits the sources used.

As editors have fabricated numerous invalid arguments it is safe to say they just dislike the idea. This is further confirmed by not lifting a finger to help with the split. I've seen nothing but antagonism, while the critical eye of other wikipedians is usually very useful in this case non of it addressed the split criteria. For illstration: Long long before the spin out article existed I was accused of POV forking over and over and over again.[23]

• Wikipedia:Content_forking#Point_of_view_.28POV.29_forks: "Since what qualifies as a 'POV fork' is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."

I cant be accused of pov forking before an article exists. I'm not ignoring consensus, the consensus is not applicable.

But the accusations keep going on and on and on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fleischmann-Pons_experiment

So the question is: what guideline are you using to delete the article? I'm not looking for empty accusations, I want to see you address the policies quoted.

There is not one argument on any of the related pages that isn't an obvious lie. Try me, try quote any of the arguments and I will show you. There is lots to chose from:

• Articles require maintenance and we haven't the resources?
• non existent articles can be pov forks?
• Article spin outs should not have duplicate content half way the process?
• a fully developed Fleischmann-Pons experiment article will be the cold fusion article?
• no convincing reason has been given to fork this?
• we dont split articles at 135 kb?
• most of the article size is in the sources?
• Cold fusion IS the P&F experiment?
• The P&F experiment is not notable?
• lots of lies make a consensus?

It will certainly be interesting, I'm not in a hurry. If I did something wrong I really want to know what it is.

Thanks for your time & happy editing.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you will restore the article, could you be so kind to remove the duplicate content from the main article.

It shouldn't take 2 minutes to implement this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion#Splitting_of_Fleischmann-Pons_experiment

My thanks in advance.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I deleted it because the AfD was old, needed closure, and the result was obvious from the input given in the discussion. Apart from that, I neither have interest in the topic nor a desire to get involved with whatever dispute is apparently underway. --slakr^\ talk / 02:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

hello there.

It is not obvious to me why you chose to delete it. I'm asking you for the reason why you deleted it. Technically it is an article spin out not a deletion. It looks to me like you claim I did something wrong here. I want to know what it is so that I can avoid repetition.

I did read "Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?" per your instructions at the top of this page. No offense intended but it looks like you did it wrong.

I'm asking you to fabricate an excuse after the deed, but you should really provide a motivation before deleting anything. This is normally found where you wrote: "The result was delete; redirect if appropriate."

I'm not asking a complex question am I?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The predominant rationales given by the other users in the discussion ere that it was a WP:POVFORK, that WP:CONSENSUS was against it, and that it it otherwise duplicated the content of an existing article. However, if you believe my assessment was in error, I suggest you consider deletion review. --slakr^\ talk / 03:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• The predominant rationales given by the other users in the discussion ere that it was a WP:POVFORK.

These accusations are from march 2013, long before the article even existed.[24] An accusation of POV forking can not be made without evidence.

wp:spinout: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork." and: "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking."

• ....that WP:CONSENSUS was against it.

You cant make a consensus out of malformed arguments. POV FORK accusations do not magically become true if you have lots of them. It only gets more dubious with every additional accusation.

• ...and that it was duplicated the content of an existing article.

Article spin outs will have duplicate content half way the process, the process it self is not an excuse to stop the process. I've explained how to delete the content from the main article on the talk page. I have already mentioned this on this page.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

2 redirects

Could you delete—

• International Hera Pheri and
• Hera Pheri 3 redirect to non-existing page deleted at AFDTito☸Dutta 08:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Conor Brian Quinn

Hi,
regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Brian Quinn, can I ask whether you considered the userfication request?
Cheers, Amalthea 08:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No, but if you feel it appropriate, take the reins on it. :P --slakr^\ talk / 12:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Toolserver

Could you give an answer for User_talk:Slakr/Archive_19#Your_toolserver_tools? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please reply --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I really have neither time nor desire to deal with migrating things around just because someone decided to make a screen scraping script with a dependency on my screen scraper script. --slakr^\ talk / 14:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Pogrom definitions AFD

Hi Slakr, thanks for closing the AfD at Definitions of Pogrom a few days ago.

The nom at the AfD has begun abusive tagging at the article Definitions of pogrom, adding numerous tags to highlight his apparent dislike of the fact the article still exists.

Please could you keep an eye on the article for a few days to make sure this doesn't spiral downhill too fast? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protea Glen Mall

• That should really be a no-consensus close, IMHO. the point of my comment was that the article needed improvement, not deletion. I would have switched my vote to keep if I thought there was any chance of a delete close based on the current anemic discussion. Sure I could rewrite a better article but hadn't gotten around to working on it yet. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The effective deadline for fixing an article at AfD is realistically when someone like me comes by to close it. If you decline to add the sources you find (e.g., and just say you found some), it makes it extremely difficult to actually validate their compliance with things like WP:RS and makes it difficult to validate that the coverage in those sources is substantiative and non-trivial. As such, Bad Things May Happen™ to the article. In its latest form, it also failed to assert notability as a business and was basically just a directory listing in addition to the actual concerns of whether it's even notable (hence why it's also not just "no consensus"). If you think you can address those concerns, I'd be more than happy to WP:USERFY it for you to work on. --slakr^\ talk / 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you'd userfy it to me, I am sure I can get it up to snuff. Thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Milowent/Protea Glen Mall --slakr^\ talk / 17:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Haha- I forgot how weak it was in its current state.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the AfD

You closed this earler with a reccomendation to merge. I have done the merge (or atleast what I think should be done) [25], but I am not sure how to delete the old article now that the merge is done, can you point me at the page that tells me how to accomplish that?CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually after a merge happens, a redirect is left behind, but the page (and its history) isn't automatically deleted out of concerns of licensing and attribution. --slakr^\ talk / 16:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, does what I did look right then? CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please check ref. for Martineau family page - ref. number 12 should be beside ref. number 16. I cannot get it right! Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.36.6 (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix AfD

{{ As "no consensus" and "keep" produce the same result, there's little point to challenging your close. Still, in determining "no consensus" you ignored a literal supermajority of "keep" voters. In these kinds of closes, it's customary for the closer to provide a detailed explanation, explaining how much weight they assigned to each opinion. You simply wrote "no consensus". I saw an overwhelming consensus to keep (yes, I voted "keep", but I'm quick to acknowledge when consensus is against me). Would you mind explaining how you arrived at your conclusion? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Conflating the words "consensus" and "majority" in a deletion discussion is problematic. Furthermore, in non-delete outcomes, I, personally, try to shy away from making commentary that someone might want to use as a trump card, implied participation, or fuel when it comes to future requests for comment, deletion discussions, or edits to the article(s) at hand (e.g., "well, the closing admin said/thought/means that..."), as it fundamentally doesn't really matter (i.e., WP:G4 isn't in play, and if someone still wants it deleted, they just re-nominate it). --slakr^\ talk / 20:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

From WP:Consensus: "Consensus can most easily be defined as 'agreement'".

From WP:Closing discussions: "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy.

The view that WP:UNDUE favors moving the information to a separate article certainly had the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. In determining the result as "no consensus", you ignored this fact. I'm not accusing you of impropriety; I'm not even saying that you were necessarily wrong. I do, however, find it reasonable to expect an explanation of how you arrived at the result you did under these circumstances. Otherwise it looks like supervoting. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It would seem you are still unhappy. Please consider deletion review. Perhaps it will be easier for someone else to detect the obvious agreement in the discussion, as I believe I clearly pointed out that I had trouble doing so. --slakr^\ talk / 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Take a break and laugh for a moment

See Talk:Harry Baals, someone complained at Sinebot because it didn't understand Dutch :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Like :D --slakr^\ talk / 22:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar

While SineBot's been showered with barnstars and top-quality robot oil, its operator has been left in the dark a little. Just like some people remember ClueBot NG but not Cobi, Crispy1989, and DamianZaremba, the bot operators. Well, I decided to give the humans some credit for building the bots. Can't believe how many unsigned comments the bot has dealt with on my talk page. I wish this bot was on Wikia as well, because unsigned comments there drive me so crazy I'm about to throw myself out a window. K6ka (talk | contribs) 02:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

*bows and graciously accepts* :) Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 00:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of National American Miss

Hello, not sure why NAM was deleted due to notability thresholds. There are a lot of girls who compete in NAM and are wanting information about NAM. If you are concerned with lack of notability because they are children then the Little league wiki page should be deleted as well. If you are concerned with name recognition then Aric Almirola's wikipage should be deleted as well. This is a state by state pageant that is so popular in Florida that there needs to be three pageants. Request you reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.7.197 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to nominate those articles for deletion, as well. --slakr^\ talk / 06:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Phil robertson merge..

I'm kinda new to all this but does this mean that the information in that article must be merged into the Phil Robertson article? If that is the case I must disagree with this assesment... given tprimarily the topic of the article wasn't about phil robertson nor A&E but the controversy over the remarks...and secondly the only call for a merge was striked out when issues of being undue were raised... (to examplify how undue it would be I refer you to the duck dynasty article which many are trying to reduce... including myself... its huge! and some suggesting trimming it down to a paragraph) but anyhoo... If merger of this article is not neccessary then I apologize for wasting your time.. although I do believe it had potential as a stand alone article...I would surely have to consider disputing turning the phil robertson page into a proxy for a controversy that in essence was about the remarks rather than the man.. alll assesments on the issue where in relation to the words/actions and beared little or no opinion of the man,the show, or the company that produced the show.....sure they started the national debate but they were not the focus of the debate... thank you for your time Nickmxp (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's basically de facto delete. However, as the arguments for delete pointed out, the main issues were the event's independent, lasting notability (rather lack thereof) and the merits of forking to its own article from its parent(s). In almost all cases (including keeps), nobody was arguing the article's entire content was truly lacking in secondary source coverage or otherwise completely delete-worthy (contrast, for example, with a non-notable company, person, etc...). Taken in concert, I took that as consensus to keep the reasonably keepable content, leaving the matter of where it truly belonged to be sorted out elsewhere. Whether or not that's on Phil Robertson (I assumed, mainly given the rationales for POV-forking and him being the originator of the comments and ensuing controversy), Duck Dynasty (as I noted a lot of the article's content is already there), and/or a combination of both is more a discussion for the editors of those respective pages, but the close templates only seem to allow one article to be stuck in the field. :P

In contrast, had it been flat-out deleted it wouldn't have addressed—and would have contradicted the logical intent of—many of the delete votes (i.e., those stating, roughly, "delete because it's a POV-fork") as well as the keep votes (i.e., those stating, roughly, "keep because it's too big and needs its own article"), as outright deleting the content (instead of merging it back to where it was forked from) would have even further solidified an alleged POV fork's intent (i.e., to presumably whitewash a source article) while obliterating the content, citations, edits, and updates that had happened in the meantime. In short: simply deleting would have been the antithesis of both sides' arguments.

Basically, the thought is that if the content was spun off from its parent article(s) for whatever reason, but people later decided it didn't need (or shouldn't have, etc...) its own article, then it logically follows that it should return from whence it came (instead of disappearing down a black hole). That's part of the idea behind ignoring a flat "!vote" count in favor of fulfilling the perceived/applied/practical intent of what's actually being said (e.g., "I'm saying <delete/keep/comment>, but I really mean <whatever> because of the rationale I'm giving and the situation at hand"). Hence, a "merge" in this instance seems to fulfill both consensus and practicality by making it a lot easier for non-admins to copy the content back to its ideal location(s), as a true "delete" would have otherwise immediately killed all of it and required either userfication, a temporary undelete, or direct admin editing action to get at the deleted revisions.

--slakr^\ talk / 10:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I must disagree with your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Robertson ''GQ'' interview controversy. The article was created to spinoff from the Duck Dynasty article to avoid the content being undue there. There are still reports coming in on this - like an entire cycle citing the ratings drop and speculating how the controversy tied into it, and the attendance at a White House dinner, etc. - and every point for deleting the article was countered with reasoned policy, and most were not refuted, if addressed at all. I think a no consensus was called for, and I ask you to reconsider the matter. The controversy itself is notable; much of the content is simply inappropriate at the biography article, where a NPOV summary, rather than what is there now, would be best, and some of the content is misplaced at the Duck Dynasty article where we should be focussing on the impact of the show, rather than rewriting everything to cater to that POV, it's best just to treat the notable event on its own, and let the Duck Dynasty content also be trimmed down to a summary, rather than recount all the notable parts of the controversy. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your very comment, "The event has already been white-washed in the biography article, Phil comes off as a preaching hero, and efforts have been underway by the nominator and SPAs to do the same on the show article.," actually makes more of a case for why it's likely a POV fork. That, among the various other comments, is why I felt merge, rather than other bolded suggestions, was appropriate given the arguments made. --slakr^\ talk / 05:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The biography has been whitewashed, if you take away all the direct quotes, which is just repeating, needlessly, the offensive comments on this controversy, there is essentially only a sentence or two. If you notice the action right about, it goes into great details on the alleged dispute with A&E over bleeping content, but that is supported by one or two sources. This controversy has hundreds, and more coming. And that's not the article where this was spun out from. The nominator has been since banned, and the article has been remarkably peaceful since then. The idea that it was a POV fork was properly refuted. It's a spinout article making the same statements as the main article, and the main editors, are both here suggesting that the article can remain and have declared an effort to work out any content disputes. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarity... I really haven't made any additions to Wikipedia concerning the gq controversy.. I did make two edits.. one on the duck dynasty article, in a failed effort to condense it and one in the deleted article to help concerns of a pov fork.. but it is very true that non of the information from this article came from the Phil Robertson page.. I think everyone is in agreement that the information is to large and irrelevant for inclusion on the two pages in question.... which is why I raised concerns over merging... I think the decision should be either a keep or delete based on input obtained from the discussion... I don't believe a merge would be of any interest to the editors of either page as there is just too much information not directly related to either subject... Nickmxp (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My point remains that the controversy itself is notable, and hundreds of sources attest to that, as well many in the discussion agreed the controversy article should exist. By having the controversy article we can easily summarize the controversy in the Duck Dynasty article, and add anything that shows how it affected the series. Anything else could be deferred to the controversy article. This arctics would've NPOV on at least those articles. Like others, I have given up the biography being NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that many editors from the Duck Dynasty article thought a seperate article was needed... I think the main issue was POV... as notability issues seemed to have been addressed... (it's kinda like the Chic-Fil-A controversy a few years back.. which there is also an article on wikipedia about..)Nickmxp (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The current whitewashing at the Duck Dynasty article, which is eerily similar to what happened at the biography demonstrates a stand alone article about the controversy is the NPOV of going forward. We can't mythologize these events. We need the stand alone article to be restored. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You can merge to either/and/or Duck Dynasty / Phil Robertson. If I recall correctly, there's realistically a better argument for reduced coverage at *Dynasty, but there's now substantially better argument for the content to return to *Robertson, despite much of the content actually being at *Dynasty. Again, I could totally be wrong, but IIRC the controversy was from comments made by predominantly the person—not the show producers, other cast, etc, and while the dude was suspended or whatever from the show, the show's content, itself, wasn't the primary originating reason for the controversy (i.e., he wasn't saying it on-air). If the show was more incidental and he could have just as easily been a cast member on "Fish Oligarchy" (or something similarly backwater but less fictitious :P), then the controversy would still more belong on the *Robertson page. That's not to say that coverage, to a certain extent, isn't also warranted on *Dynasty, of course.

If you're concerned about UNDUE issues on the person page, keep in mind that it's woefully evident that a substantial portion of Robertson's notability in secondary sources comes from his comments, even if the reception was controversial.

--slakr^\ talk / 04:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, AfD isn't the final word, especially in more borderline AfDs like this. Should the issues of the main rationales that were given be resolved, there's realistically no prejudice against recreation. Things like WP:G4 serve to avoid people wantonly recreating articles without fixing the problems raised in an AfD, so if you think it can survive a proverbial "round 2" at AfD, you could always go for it. Keep in mind that a large amount of contention was also over the subjective applications of WP:EVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS, not just the WP:NPOV issues. So, time's probably your friend on this, too (think "lasting effects:" greater sourcing, continuing coverage, other events citing the event, etc...) --slakr^\ talk / 04:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. In this case Robertson is the patriarch of the family, and the show is about the family, he is synonymous with the show, and is considered to be speaking on behalf of the family. He wouldn't have been interviewed if it weren't for the show, and all his controversial comments were reported as "Duck Dynasty star", "Duck Dynasty controversy," etc. As well all the protests were focussed on the show (getting it cancelled), and the network. So the show article is where the controversy should likely be centered but a stand alone controversy article would relieve the concerns, except for those that wish to remove all traces of the event, or spin it only as a religious man being victimized. What do you suggest is the best way forward? Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Marc Latamie's article

Dear Slakr, the article "Marc Latamie" has been deleted by you yesterday while, after many conversation with different users and administrators, I followed the recquired informations for sourcing the text. It was sourced at the end. I took time to understand how to do it well. But finally the ones who gave a deletion advertissment agreed with the changes. Then, I inform you that I am going to do it again, being very carefull with the requested laws for wikipedia.--Lucilulle (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Stacy Blackman article

I was surprised to see that the article was deleted considering that I had edited it to address all the concerns. I have placed a copy on my user page. Looking at that, what would be your main feedback to fix it up, considering that it is well referenced so pass WP:GNG? Thanks —Artfog (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The best people to ask for input are likely people who had commented in the deletion discussion. --slakr^\ talk / 19:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I commented on their vote, addressing their concerns, but they never responded. That is why I'm surprised, because I thought I had addressed all the concerns raised. —Artfog (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Review of YouNow

Hi Slakr, I am back from holiday (lucky me!) and saw that the AfD decision for [YouNow] was delete (unlucky me!) and I am trying to understand why. On a purely "vote" basis, there were 4 votes for Keep (2 from me) and 3 for Delete. But more importantly, on the issues of substance, I believe I answered each of the criticisms with factual answers. Aside from personal opinion that the page was promotional, Deleters offered two more specific arguments for deletion. DGG wrote that the references I cited were "essentially just notices." I made the case that long articles from TechCrunch and AllThingsD are much more than notices. A vote for Keep added additional references. DGG did not attempt to rebut this. BlitzGreg argued that "Citations are all to Youtube pages." I explained that I chose these YouTubers because they were highly notable (the two i chose each have their own Wiki pages). BlitzGreg did attempt to rebut this. Finally, I made the point that YouNow had purchased a company BlogTV that itself was considered notable enough for a Wiki page. As this is only the second page I've created and my first Delete, I wanted to check with you to understand more about the reason for Delete before I attempt a more formal appeal. Thanks for any insight you can offer. skeats111 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD is not about numbers; it's about arguments (also for future reference: avoid adding more than one vote, as it looks like vote stacking). On top of that, one of the commenters, Wesakgilda (talk · contribs), had no other edits outside of that discussion. On the delete side, the argument was that it failed the general notability guideline requirement for the sources to be substantial, independent, secondary, and/or reliable. Keep arguments were based on inheritance from another article (i.e., BlogTV) and other things having articles, which are typically not valid arguments. That said, If BlogTV is, however, notable, and YouNow acquired their assets, then perhaps BlogTV is the more appropriate article (and/or possibly appropriate for a move to the new name). *shrug* --slakr^\ talk / 00:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response. I really appreciate it. I want to persist, however, because the main point of the Delete side, that the referenced are not "substantial, independent, secondary, and/or reliable," does not hold up. TechCrunch and AllThingsD are independent of YouNow. They are owned by AOL and the Wall Street Journal. YouNow is a venture-backed start-up. The sources are secondary and reliable. And the stories were substantial. They are medium length articles that focus exclusively on YouNow (unlike, for example, a round-up story that might cover 5 or 6 companies in an emerging market). The AllThingsD article includes a 14 minute video of YouNow giving a demo of the product. The TechCrunch article is also focused solely on YouNow and also includes a 13 minute video. The Dive Into Media and Tech Disrupt conferences are highly regarded, invitation-only events that attracts notable venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and tech evangelists. And there are more. I just found a PCMag article (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392871,00.asp) focused on YouNow. Given that the quality of the references was the primary reason for delete, can you respond to these specific references and explain what is lacking? Thanks. skeats111 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an issue with there simply not being enough. The thing about AfD is that it can be widely variable on just how many sources there need to be, and how extensive the coverage in those sources should be. I have noticed, however, that usually web content and companies are expected to have considerably greater and more diverse sourcing than, say, a dead historic figure, for example, probably in large part due to the amount of promotional articles that people create, and the relative inexpensiveness of commissioning promotional coverage in periodicals and press-release-reposting websites. --slakr^\ talk / 03:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Slakr. That helps. How many references are enough? Techcrunch is huge. It's comparable to some of the most heavily trafficked tech blogs on the web. (Scroll down here to see techrunch compared to sites like mashable, lifehacker and engadget https://siteanalytics.compete.com/mashable.com/#.Uw4PS_RdVGH). AllThingsD does not get at many uniques, but with Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher, you have two of the most influential tech writers on the web. I would be happy to add the PCMag article. That makes three. One of the Keep votes suggested a few others, so the article could grow to 5 or 6 references. I assume there is no hard and fast rule, but that seems pretty sufficient in both number and significance of reference to meet the criteria for substantial coverage. Skeats111 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Slakr, would you support restoring the article to draft status? This would allow me to amend it to incorporate additional, significant references I mentioned above, along with others I'm sure I can find. I think this would help the community make a more informed decision, and I believe, ultimately result in a Restore decision. I'm suggesting this after looking at Deletion review. I noticed the Leslie Cornfield decision here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_February_22 which has some similarities to YouNow. Skeats111 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

deletion of younow

Hey did you check the links i hve provided? Or did you skip them as my edit count is low? Wesakgilda (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Press releases don't count; echoes/blogs of the same coverage don't count; mentions in passing don't count. While unfamiliarity with those conventions can translate to finding someone has a low edit count, I can incidentally assure you that high edit counts don't necessarily translate to familiarity, either. Even I have to review our policies and guidelines. --slakr^\ talk / 08:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Horowitz

Richard Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

You recently deleted an article on composer Richard Horowitz. I had just spoken last week to Callanec to have it restored with the condition I put in all my sources. I have since been working on making a proper works cited. Would you please restore it so I could put in all the sources? This was my first modification to a preexisting entry.

Jeanettebonds (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Jeanettebonds

 Callanecc (talk · contribs), who's presumably more well informed of the situation and is also an administrator, should able to assist you. I primarily try to focus on backlogged areas. --slakr^\ talk / 09:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Raffy Cortina

Raffy Cortina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hiya Slakr,

You recently deleted Raffy Cortina, and I was hoping you could help me understand what the major issues were with page, and if they can potentially be fixed. No one felt too strongly about it in the discussion, although I'm not sure if the participants realized that the student award they were talking about is actually an Oscar. I'd be willing to take responsibility for the page if it can get undeleted. Let me know when you get a chance! --Cheers, Buttons23 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  It would appear the primary argument was that it didn't meet our notability requirements for biographies. Take a peek at requests for undeletion. --slakr^\ talk / 09:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Jen Hudak

Hey there. First of all, thank you so much for restoring my account. After reading the Wikipedia rules and regulations, I completely understand why the content I wrote is unacceptable. However, I'd still like to use that content and rewrite it in my own words, rather than scrounging around and gathering resources all over again. Is there any way I can recover what was previously written for personal use so that I may use it as a framework to rewrite the article. I'm in talks with Jen Hudak via email to get more information on her career but would prefer to have a basis before doing so. Thank you in advance. (EGorodetsky (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crown Hill, Indianapolis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Just wondering why this was a "delete" instead of a relist? The only person to participate in the debate said it should be incubated for improvement. There was no rush that I can see.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  We don't keep things that are unqualified for mainspace around indefinitely, so asking for incubation is still asking for delete. I can userfy if someone, specifically, wants to take personal charge of the article and believes they can improve it up to the standards of verifiability, notability, and the numerous other content criteria. As for not relisting, it comes down to an issue of practicality:

  1. The policy of verifiability was the primary rationale for deletion.
  2. I agreed with the assessment of the nominating admin's understanding of the policy of verifiability.
  3. No policy or guideline-based argument was given to keep it; asking for incubation (instead of just making the changes that may-or-may-not address the deletion rationale) is still asking for delete.
  4. The AfD had already gone several days past its 7-day window, with no additional input, making it also a de facto {{prod}} in that regard.

  --slakr^\ talk / 01:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see someone beat me here.  With part of your point I agree, as I often !vote Delete for articles without sources on the grounds that they must be entirely rewritten.  I even sponsored a discussion at WT:V to improve support for the deletion of articles that fail WP:V.  But claiming that incubate, without arguments to keep, is really a request for delete, is strained logic.  The nominator has already explained that sources are confounded with the nearby cemetery.  As per deletion policy, Incubation is preferred to Userfication.

I strongly disagree that AfD creates a hostage, one that requires editors to shift their editing priorities.  IMO it is questionable time management to invest time in an article where there is currently an active AfD, there is already one editor !voting to delete, and there is a deadline.

As for your point that WP:DRAFTS needs to have a process to give an operational definition to the term "stale draft", I have attempted this argument at WT:Drafts.  The consensus as of now (really only one person defending the status quo), is that there is no deadline at Wikipedia.  I cannot carry this argument by myself.  You are allowed to join the conversation at WT:Drafts.

Finally, this was a WP:NOQUORUM, so a hard delete was an incorrect closure.  A soft delete is the same as the de facto prod that you mention.  A prod can have been restored to draftspace, but the hard delete prevents this path to incubation.  It is partly your job to build an encyclopedia.  Do you agree that incubation is a process to improve the encyclopedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucracy gives me diarrhea ...heh, well, not really, but I try to avoid it like 3rd-world tap water. If you'd like, feel free to ignore all of the "helpful hints" as to my inner reasoning for the close (since you seem to be experiencing a similar adverse reaction to them) and go solely based on my actions. I suggest you re-read the policy you're quoting, for starters; then, take this to deletion review if you're still unconvinced my close was in line with it. Of course, you're more than welcome to just fix the policy-based problems with the article and re-create it, but the choice is entirely yours. --slakr^\ talk / 08:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, you've had some time to reflect on your comments, is there anything else you want to say?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there something else you needed assistance with that I happened to miss? --slakr^\ talk / 02:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So for you it is so normal to initiate a conversation with a stranger by talking about diarrhea, that you've forgotten it in the next breath.  Do you agree that incubation is a process to improve the encyclopedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

[stray text that was escalatory removed]  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

So to reiterate, you're saying you don't require further assistance from me. That's understandable. Thank you for raising your concerns, and I regret that I have been unable to resolve them to your complete satisfaction. If you happen to run across any further issues on this topic, please feel free to contact another admin to assist you, as it's become apparent that I'll be unable to address your concerns. --slakr^\ talk / 05:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity St. Clair

Hi Slakr, Even though it resulted in the loss of an article, I want to thank you for your clear and concise explanation of your reasoning behind the AfD closure and your decision. Regardless of the allegation made by Admin Spartaz, I was not trying to "tell you how to do your job". I was just trying to suggest a peaceful outcome to one of unfortunately several heated debates. Again, thank you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good close! Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Need Help updating our logo.

Affymetrix (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Hi Slakr, We need to update our logo to the new one. Can you please help? or point us in the right direction. Please drop us an email at corporate1@affymetrix.com

Thank you, Affymetrix (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)John

Indiggo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thanks for your thoughtful close. A few points. First, there were more than one article that focused primarily on Indiggo (some in Romanian, but at least one in English). Your close reads as though they don't exist. They are, along with the other mentions that are shorter, the essence of GNG. Also, your close reads like a !vote, rather than a weighing of the !votes of others -- which appear to me to be no consensus. Finally, especially given the above, and the fact -- flagged in the discussion -- that some !votes came while relevant material had been improperly deleted, I think it would serve the interests of the project to keep the AfD open for another week, as we often do in close cases. Many thanks for your consideration.07:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Epeefleche (talk)

Leaving it open longer would appear to only result in more delete votes. If an AfD reaches me, it's because AfD is backlogged and whatever the AfD, it's overdue for a close—usually by several days (5 in this case, which is nearly the entire length of the relist you're requesting). It's not about numbers, and as a closer, when someone says "Per Michael Bednarek," I look back at that guy's comment, see unreliable sources as part of the justification (not consistent with the reliable sources guideline as artists can self-edit/self-publish), and also see sources that mention the subject in passing (not consistent with the notability guidelines). Because they don't accurately reflect our policies and guidelines, those !votes end up being losing weight or being discarded altogether. This is the main reason why it's extremely important to not just say "per (someone else)," because if that person's rationale isn't grounded in policy, neither is yours. Check out things like arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for a more thorough explanation of why this is. --slakr^\ talk / 08:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it appropriate to fail to leave the afd open for more comment on the basis of your surmise that it "would appear to only result in more delete votes." There's no basis for that surmise. Furthermore, the opposite conclusion is logical. Many of the !votes came in when the article didn't contain refs - such as the Romanian refs - that the article now reflects. Hence, future commenters would be more likely to !vote keep.

Furthermore, we routinely extend afds when, as here, there is not a clear consensus. We've done so for years at the Project.

In addition, you will note that I referred to consensus (in the project meaning of the term) -- not numbers.

And Michael B, whom I alluded to, focused on GNG. Which I did, in the first instance. And I amplified the basis for my !vote in later discussion at the Afd.

Finally -- you focus on that "part of" Michael's reasoning that relied on non-RSs. The proper thing to focus on in that instance, IMHO, are that "part of" Michael's reasoning that relied on RSs.

I would urge the re-opening of the AfD, for further comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC) "other part."

I'm familiar with relisting AfDs when doing so is appropriate. In this instance, however, consensus seemed pretty clear to me, although you may disagree, but I tried my best to explain why there was rough consensus in the closing rationale. Keep in mind that even though the article's deleted, it can be userfied, draftspaced, or flat-out recreated should even some of those issues be clearly addressed. WP:G4 really only exists to prevent verbatim recreates that would fail to address the issues of an AfD (and therefore the issues of policy/established consensus it would continue to violate). That's the upside of AfDs the end in a delete; if the issues raised in the AfD become irrelevant at a later date, it can be easily undeleted or recreated. In this case, if people said it predominantly failed MUSIC because of, e.g., only having one album, well, then by the second one, there's obvious reason to recreate. Same goes for substantial press coverage. Long story short, relisting this AfD won't fix the issues people raised unless someone actually is able to fix the issues people raised. --slakr^\ talk / 03:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are exercising a supervote when you write: "relisting this AfD won't fix the issues people raised unless someone actually is able to fix the issues people raised." The closer is to assess consensus. But you are -- so far -- refusing to list what I believe is anything but a clear consensus to delete. On the basis that you don't care what the consensus is, even if there is more input, which input reflects reading the RSs and the long treatments of the subject, which were added during the course of the AfD (some had been deleted, inappropriately). A closer is to assess consensus. I'll simply request one more time under the circumstances that you allow more time for input, to better gauge the sentiment of the consensus of !voters.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I'll be unable to address your concerns to your complete satisfaction. If you still believe I improperly closed the AfD, please consider visiting WP:DRV. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 11:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.